I read through those voting examples, and I suppose that on balance everything is relative. We've got "right-leaning Democrats" and "left-leaning Republicans," "convervative Democrats," and "ultra-conservative Republicans," etc. I suppose I can live with an "uppercase L-Libertarian."

And as Wendy puts it, "I will concede that I could have found much more to criticize had I examined just about any other voting record. He is no doubt the least bad of the declared candidates and may be head and shoulders above anyone else in Congress."

This may be the weakest triad of "first-tier" candidates that I've ever witnessed (McCain, Guiliani, Romney).

It's okay, the Democrats seem to have handicapped themselves with Clinton, Obama and Edwards to the point where the Republicans have a chance.

Yeesh. The current level of political discourse in this country makes me yearn for the days when we could at the stupidity that made Paris Hilton a celebrity. Now we're living with the results of the political ascendance of that culture.

I don't think Edwards would be an effective leader, Clinton's "cold factor" (among other things) turns me away, and I don't think Obama has enough experience yet. Bloomberg's comments were "spot on" in your other post, but I'd worry about him being too "NYC-centric," and also pandering to certain special interests. Romney "appears" to be the most "presidential," but I don't know enough about him yet.

To follow-up on this, consider the media manipulation that is currently taking place right before our very eyes. According to many polls, Ron Paul has won ALL THREE debates decisively in the eyes of informed voters. Here is but one example.

Yet the media continues to "push" the big three, and the pre-planned and calculated funneling process will continue until America is left with no real choices. Freedom of the press? Freedom for America? Hardly. Tell me that and I've got a bridge to sell you.

Perhaps the media focuses on Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Fred Thompson because the random, nationwide, independent polls show that's who the people are interested in. The online, vote early/vote often, "polls" like the MSNBC citation are not scientific (as they state) and are easily manipulated.

Professional pollsters have only one goal: get the right results. Their reputation rides on that alone. Rasmussen, Gallup, SurveyUSA would be fine with reporting Ron Paul gaining ground or having huge grass roots support or whatever, but those results simply aren't there. I'd submit the media would be TICKLED with a groundswell for Paul, as it would generate great news coverage material.

Truthfully, without the grass roots support, nor the support of GOP insiders, Paul quite frankly and quite sadly doesn't have a chance for the nomination. In realistic terms, if he simply stays in the debates, keeps telling the truth, and keeps stirring the political pot in this country, perhaps someone will stand on the platform of honesty he builds and have a chance in the future.

There is one slight problem with your analysis topspin. When C-SPAN opened up their lines following the first debate the calls were overwhelmingly for Paul. It was almost humorous. And it came from all swaths of society. There was no manipulation taking place. It was good ol' grass roots support calling in saying Paul is the only guy making any sense.

You know there comes a point when even people like yourself have to acknowledge Paul is getting extraordinary attention amongst a large percentage of the US population. Any program in which he appears he gets standing ovations. The only place this is not taking place are on the carefuly staged national debates. And I suppose there are always going to be large percentage of the sheeple who will buy into the Big Media explanations behind Paul's numbers. I've heard things like college students are jamming servers on universities. I doubt there was a single college student who called in on the C-SPAN program recently. At what point is the charade exposed for what it is?

Paul is opposed to our foreign policy and is a strong upholder of the Constitution. For Fifth Columnists this doesn't square with their agenda.

I wonder if the Ron Paul issue is similar to the Howard Dean one. Dean had a lot of support among vocal people, but those people weren't tastemakers, and the fact that they were vocal overshadowed how few of them there were.

In every election there emerges a candidate that a vocal group of people can latch on to and say "that's my choice", but that's not the person who gets elected because that principled candidate can never build the coalition necessary to actually get elected.

Everyone holds their nose when they vote, and so the candidate who wins won't be the one who's most lauded, but the one who's least loathed. I can't imagine anyone who actually has principles filling that spot, nor can I imagine anyone with principles polling well.

Their ability to predict the pulse of the people and survey political strengths and other trends is their ONLY product. They would only harm their own interests if they "ignored" the grass roots political strength of Ron Paul.

CNN speaks to Paul's "success" in "straw polls" and "vote early/vote often" website polls. In some ways, it dampens my eye toward Mr. Paul because I see his supporters as behaving in an unfair manner and deliberately attempting to skew the results with multiple votes. That's the only logical conclusion when the random, scientific polls of support are so far in the other direction.

Again, I'm not saying Ron Paul isn't by far the best GOP candidate from my perspective, but I'm not about to sign on to illogical statements about his support throughout the country.

Dan, Dean went down for one reason and one reason only. He made a statement that the we need to deal with the Palestinians on an equitable basis. That was his death knell. They then fabricated the Dean Scream which was played on every program from MTV to CNN. You don't mess with the Media bosses agenda.

Come on, topspin, I have to believe you are sharper than you are letting on. I can tell you exactly what is taking place and it is not tough to figure out. Big Media has said to the American people it is going to be X, Y or Z. In the minds of most Americans there are no A, B or C's. So when polls are being done X, Y or Z are being offered up. Is this because most Americans like X, Y or Z more than say A? No, they have no idea what A has to offer or believes because A has not been hyped or portrayed in the manner X, Y and Z have. You can cite all the surveys you want but the only numbers that really mean anything are from those who are following the process, who are attempting to understand the issues and the candidates. In these polls Ron Paul is running away with it. In the polls you talk about most of these people know nothing other than what they have been told by Big Media. So, how the heck can you claim X, Y or Z's numbers are more plausible than A? It just doesn't make sense. Are they simply more plausible because Big Media is telling us these people count and Ron Paul doesn't?

BC, actually I believe that Dean went down because Joe Trippi didn't understand how the Iowa Caucuses worked, and because of that failure Dean looked weaker than he should have given how he was positioned as a candidate. Trippi didn't understand that youthful enthusiasm doesn't get you a whole lot when the nature of the "vote" is a long debate on the relative merits of the various different candidates with people who, for all candidates but Dean, tended to be much older and much more strongly opinionated (and possibly informed). In building concensus in such a group, the younger supporters got out-maneuvered.

The "Dean Scream" could easily have been managed had Dean's campaign been competent and the expectations for Iowa been reasonable, because in a standard primary vote, Dean could have had a good showing.

I'd like to believe in a vast media conspiracy, there are times when it would make things so much more clear and restore my faith in the general electorate, but I largely agree with Topspin: It's easy to misread the enthusiasm of those who want to believe as popularity for Ron Paul, but when it comes time for people to actually show up for the polls (or, in Iowa, to show up in a room full of people and convince all the other voters there that Ron Paul is likely to take on the Democratic candidates in a time when Republicans are weak and nobody wants to take any chances), it'll be Giuliani or Romney, depending on which of those plays the religion angle more effectively on the evangelical vote.

BC, again, professional pollsters have ZERO TO GAIN by "hiding" Ron Paul's popularity and support. What would they all have to gain by getting their polls wrong? Their reputation and revenue depend on delivering correct info, not some "conspiracy tainted" info. The truth is: Ron Paul has VERY VERY little support.

You can cite all the surveys you want but the only numbers that really mean anything are from those who are following the process, who are attempting to understand the issues and the candidates. In these polls Ron Paul is running away with it.

And you wanna question my sharpness? Sure, let's do a little good natured sharpness challenge, shall we? Name one REAL state primary or caucus where you think Ron Paul will garner 10% of the vote. So, where is it? Show me where these straw polls and online polls are gonna pay off for Ron Paul and "really mean anything" and where those "who are attempting to understand the issues and the candidates" are gonna come through for Ron Paul and he is gonna "run away with it" in your estimation. Heck, he doesn't have to win..... in your sharp view of things, BC, tell us which REAL primary or caucus will Ron Paul get 10%.

I think everyone here is making very good points, and all of this reveals how "flawed" our entire political process and system is. At the end of the day, this truly is a popularity contest. Actual competence or altruism has little to do with the outcome. (Need I say Dubya?)

There is strong evidence to support that the "debates" (and they really aren't debates) are at least partially rigged. Since they are handpicked, I personally feel there should be NO live audience for these "media events." In my view, any generated applause only tends to reinforce the polls of grandstanders like Guiliani, and mutes the effective and salient points made by other candidates. Let the viewers around the country decide on their own, without extraenous sensory input, who is making the best impression to them (not the audience). And dammit, give ALL of the candidates EQUAL time.

Dan, I tend to agree with your comment that "the candidate who wins won't be the one who's most lauded, but the one who's least loathed." And that's rather sad. And even more sadly, America will get what she deserves.

Topspin, you keep saying "professional pollsters" have nothing to gain. How can you make such a claim? How do you think these pollsters get paid? How do they generate revenue? Who buys their numbers? Who are the candidates that have the huge war chests? Why do they have those war chests? Is it because of their popularity amongst the voters? No. It is because Big Media and Big Business knows who can be counted on and who can't. Giuliani can be counted on. McCain can be counted on. Romney can be counted on. Therefore, donations from orchestrated drives flow to those who can be counted on. Ron Paul will not sell out and therefore cannot be counted on. The huge war chests that have been raised will then flow to Big Media. Since Ron Paul does not genuflect to Big Media and Big Business and cannot be counted on, only grass roots support is flowing to him, in dribs and drabs. I would bet Paul's number of donors are bigger than McCain, Giuliani and Romney combined. Big Media is not going to promote someone who does not have a large war chest to be spent in TV ads.

70% of the American public is opposed to the war. For many voters this is the single most important issue. If Paul is the only candidate arguing that we bring our troops home now how is it McCain, Giuliani and Romney lead the polls? What do the voters who are responding to these polls see in G, R and Mc? What is resonating with the voters from the Big 3? Most of the people voting in these polls are merely regurgitating information they have had spoon fed to them every day, day in and day out. I know several people who do exactly this. They listen to the pundits and then essentially repeat it. Despite Paul's numbers often times he is not even mentioned in articles written by writers like Glen Johnson of the AP. Lemmings who don't do their homework but merely repeat what they read or hear are not going to conjure up Ron Paul out of thin air. To them he doesn't even exist. This is a big vicious cycle. If people had all the facts Paul would run away with the primaries.

BC, not only do you refuse to suggest where Paul with get 10% of the vote in a real primary, you also fade into la-la land here and do your candidate disservice in my eyes.

You're suggesting the lack of press and numbers for Ron Paul is all a huge "Big Media" conspiracy. You've suggested Wolf Blitzer and others are "told in no uncertain terms what they want the perceptions to be for the American people" as though some "Big, Powerful PuppetMaster" is pulling the strings and controlling everything.

Is this what Ron Paul suggests? Does the candidate, known for his plain speech and honesty and disregard for the political correctness of his statements, make such a claim? I think not. Do any of his official campaign personnel make such a claim? I think not. If so, I'd like to see it.

In my mind, supporters like yourself.... suggesting a "Big Media" conspiracy and making outlandish "gonna run away with it" claims... detract from what is Paul's sensible, intelligent positions by spewing ill-conceived drivel. Why are you doing this stuff to your candidate?

Number one, topspin, you didn't answer a single question I asked. Why should I predict whether Paul will get 10% of the vote in a primary? That is your game.

Are you simply not understanding what I have been saying? How is the electorate supposed to vote for X in these polls you cling to when they don't know who X is? Why don't they know who X is, you ask? Because the press refuses to give X any air time. They ignore X. And when they don't ignore him they denigrate or insult him.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is happening here. Sean Hannity treated Ron Paul with arrogance and contempt. In the debate they chose to push him to the farthest side, while the Big 3 were placed in the center. Blitzer constantly cut him off while treating the Big 3 with kid gloves.

I would bet that virtually every person voting in these polls you cling to couldn't tell me what Giuliani, Romney or McCain stand for. They only know they have heard their names more often. Therefore, they will randomly pick one when asked who they feel is the most likely candidate to get the nomination. It is simply name recognition. It has nothing to do with any understanding of the issues.

Lastly, your naivete is stunning when you suggest (via the Conspiracy Canard) Big Media or Big Business are not promoting some candidates while denigrating others. And don't try to pretend you are in any way, shape or form a Paul supporter. Guys like you couldn't be further away from him. If you were a supporter you would intuitively understand what has been occurring.

I believe that Topspin is asking why he should believe that your estimates are any more valid than the professional polling organization's estimates, since the professional pollsters tend to be pretty good at predictions.

And of course media is promoting various candidates over other candidates, but remember that the media's primary product is delivering eyeballs to advertisers, so they'll do whatever it takes to funnel those eyeballs in the right direction. If Ron Paul keeps those consumers amused, he'll continue to get air time, if not someone else will, but that delivery of eyeballs and the entertainment factor necessary to do that is going to be a stronger motivation than the pushing of a particular ideology.

They may be led in that pushing of an ideology because someone's feeding them content that keeps the viewers amused, but... well... I'm sick of Paris Hilton stories, I can't imagine that keeping her in the media is satisfying anyone's ideological needs, but some publicist is a master at spinning narrative that keeps the "journalists" panting in that direction.

I've already answered the question of why one should not believe the professional polls. Paul has been winning the MSNBC unfiltered polls by landslide margins. When the air waves are opened up to the general public on C-SPAN call after call is being made in support of Paul. Yet people like topspin choose to disregard the feedback one can actually see and hear. Instead he chooses to rely on the "professional pollsters." And even if the numbers were somehow skewed by fanatical Paul supporters as topspin suggests why would the press not want to discuss and understand this wave of ardent support for Paul?

Dan, this is not simply about where the next ad dollar will come from, as you suggest. Ron Paul is being very clearly and deliberately marginalized by mainstream media. What you seem to fail to understand is the mainstream media can make the story, they can make the candidate people want to talk about. Most people have no idea how they are being manipulated.

It is comical how topspin scoffs at the suggestion that there could possibly be conspiratorial actions taken by Big Business and Big Media. Wake up, folks. Why do you think every candidate is clamoring over who can promise the most to Israel? Once you can answer this you can answer why Ron Paul is being marginalized. Paul wants us out of the Middle East which directly contradicts the long term objectives, as spelled out in PNAC and other Neocon organizations, of Israel.

BC, Ron Paul himself doesn't strike me as a "vast conspiracy" sorta guy. He seems to have some excellent ideas and thoughtful perspectives on America's direction. I still think he's the best offering from the GOP. I don't detect anything anywhere in his rhetoric about conspiracies against him by the media, nor bought off pollsters, etc. From what I've seen, he carries himself with respect for the other candidates and the process as well as well considered counter-arguments to his opponent's opinions.

I find Ron Paul's viewpoints interesting, but your viewpoints are heavily immersed in negativity and cynicism toward the political process, the other candidates, and anyone who disagrees with your "conspiracy" viewpoint.

Not paradoxically, I find Paul's viewpoints interesting and "sane," and I am also very highly cynical of our political process. To me, our overall "political process" is a much larger issue than Ron Paul. His marginalization is a simple manifestation of "the process."

Let's face the heuristics. Big money drives our political process, and big money comes from big corporations and from influential special interest groups. Neither of those entities have Americans at-large in their interest.

Paul is marginalized, because he doesn't toe the line drawn by those entities. And those "entities" control most of the uni-directional messaging (mass media) which is received by most voting Americans. That sums our political process up in pretty simple terms.

topspin, let's understand the essence of what we are discussing here. A conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more entities to carry out a certain plan. That is not what I have ever said or suggested. Those are your words. Have you ever read mondoweiss.com? He was a writer for The Observer and expressed decidedly negative views toward Zionism. In an article he wrote for The American Conservative he explains what "the expectations" are amongst those who support Zionism. People don't openly discuss what they consider to be the obvious. It is a given. And once it is understood that someone is not "on board" they are let go, cut loose. Pat Buchanan is a great example of another person who ran for office who was marginalized. Why? Because he wasn't on board, he was another American Firster. Why do you think so many American icons have been marginalized, people who were idolized during their generation by the American people. People such as Lucky Lindy. Lindberg was another American Firster. Once he opposed plans laid out by International Zionism he was marginalized. You can assign this process any name you choose, conspiracy or whatever, but it is a very real, very effective process that is employed by those with this agenda. In case you haven't noticed the line to present before AIPAC, to swear more money, more American soldiers, armaments, etc. snakes around Pennsylvania Avenue. Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, Romney are elbowing each other in the face to try to be the first to the podium to promise the most. Paul is not in that line. Get it?

As to Ron Paul's rhetoric regarding conspiracies or talking about what I have mentioned above, he is a savvy public figure. He is not carrying on an anonymous discussion on some obscure little website. Do you really think Ron Paul would EVER discuss this topic without first very carefully defining exactly what he was identifying? That being said, do you think it is mere coincidence that Ron Paul, the candidate who can't get air time, delivered the famous We've Been Neoconned speech in the chambers of the US Congress?

Just as Henry Ford stated in his book The International Jew, it doesn't matter whether The Elders of Zion was a plan devised by International Jewry (Neonazi position) or whether it was a fabrication of the Czar's military (Zionist position) to win favor among the masses in Russia, the fact of the matter is the plan is being implemented. What is described is occurring, just like the line snaking around Pennsylvania Avenue with all the "real" candidates (as proven in those "real polls" you cite), swearing their obeisance to Israel. Call it "conspiracy", call it "prejudice", call it "anti-semitism", call it "self-hating Jew", call it what you like, the line still snakes around Pennsylvania Avenue, and Ron Paul hasn't been invited nor would he appear.

It is comical how topspin scoffs at the suggestion that there could possibly be conspiratorial actions taken by Big Business and Big Media.

Your post above:

topspin, let's understand the essence of what we are discussing here. A conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more entities to carry out a certain plan. That is not what I have ever said or suggested. Those are your words.

Indeed. At no point did you make a case for you assertions. You simply made statements that marginalized Paul, or at least Paul's support. Nothing you said backed it up. And the best you can do is focus on conspiracy canards without having even a whiff of the substance of the conversation.